Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AlexanderA, Feb 16, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
  2. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,846
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    *** --- ***

    Do you REALLY think people can be hoodwinked THIS easily?
     
  3. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    I don't know any law that is 100% perfect. I don't know why you think that is required. It would be a crime. If you get caught, you go to jail. How they prove it is their problem. The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.
    Again, not following the logic here.
    What?
     
  4. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    If he does, he's not wrong. That's how incrementalism works, each increment is repugnant, but can be tolerated. Only when the destination is reached do some realize how far they've been led. But that is why we need to fight against the destination, not the increment du jour.

    Edit: Should have said, we need to fight the increment du jour because we object to the real destination.
     
  5. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291

    And we're done. Grow up. This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.
     
  6. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
     
  7. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    453
    The problem is that if the get this law passed, then they will be saying in a few month what a LARGE percentage of guns :)mad: nonsense statistics mind you) are changing hands without checks, maybe some other mass shooting occurs then BOOM executive order requiring registration of all firearms in compliance with law XYZ (because the Pres has the power to enforce the law right?) now we all have to register our stuff. By the time this is over turned by the supreme court (many cases take years to even be heard) they have confiscated all our guns. I said earlier "Let them pass it", I wholeheartedly take that back now.
     
  8. C.F. Plinker

    C.F. Plinker Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    In Colorado where the plains meet the mountains.
    The law under consideration in Colorado addresses these two situations in the exception section as temporary transfers where neither title or ownership is being transferred. The temorary transfer at a range must be done an an incorporated range. This could exclude municipal ranges, forest service ranges, and informal ranges on public land. Your hunting buddy example is allowed where you are hunting and both parties must have valid hunting licenses. You couldn't loan the rifle from your house or even the motel room where you are staying.

    It seems to me that if a grandpa gave his grand-daughter a rifle, neither Mom or Dad could even clean it (at any place other than a range) without the grand-daughter needing to get a background check on her parent.

    Edit to add:
    This section was added to the part on exemptions after the most recent hearings:

    (f) A TRANSFER OF A FIREARM THAT IS MADE TO FACILITATE THE
    9 REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE OF THE FIREARM; EXCEPT THAT THIS PARAGRAPH
    10 (f) DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS ALL PARTIES WHO POSSESS THE FIREARM AS
    11 A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM.

    My comments above regarding cleaning guns may not be pertinant any longer.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  9. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,846
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    This is a law that would be 100% INEFFECTIVE without REGISTRATION and you know it too.


    I don't know what the point is of a law which has no enforcement mechanism. Of course the enforcement mechanism for this would would be... REGISTRATION.


    And that should be encouraged... WHY???

    But now YOU admit that without REGISTRATION it would be "weak" and "ineffective".
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  10. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,846
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I can't stop you from trying to dupe me.

    You can't make me fall for it.

    That seems to anger you.
     
  11. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,846
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    It's ESPECIALLY not "paranoia" when you can cite SPECIFIC instances of it happening.

    I'm from Chicago. I KNOW what comes from REGISTRATION.

    This con CANNOT be enforced without registration, whether it's instituted immediately, or later to "fix" it.

    Anybody who claims otherwise is dishonest.
     
  12. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,533
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Yes, I do. In my very first post on this thread I pointed out that in certain circumstances enforcement was possible. I even listed a couple of examples to make it even more plain what I meant.
    No, I didn't say that and I don't understand what possible motive you could have to try to twist things around to try to make it sound like I have when it's so painfully obvious that I haven't.

    You can't take a single word out of a paragraph and pretend that sums up the entire gist of the paragraph. It is even more ridiculous when, to avoid just such a "misunderstanding", I even emphasized the critical part of my statements about the difficulty of enforcement to make it even more plain.

    Let's try it again, this time I'll add even more emphasis.

    Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.​

    To sum up, enforcement is possible under certain limited circumstances, but impossible in the general case.

    Not "impossible" period, "impossible in the general case".
    If it were merely repetition, you would be correct. However, I am not relying on repetition. I am relying on logic and on facts acknowledged to be true by a NIJ PhD.

    I get that you don't understand the logic that I and others have explained on this thread in painstaking detail, and I am about ready to concede that you do not comprehend the difference between "impossible" and "impossible in the general case", but fortunately, you don't have to rely on any of that. Just go read the memo by the NIJ expert.

    http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

    "Universal background checks
    ... Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process."​

    I don't see how it could be any more plain.
    Because one can use drug possession or evidence of drug use to prove a crime has taken place in the very likely case where one can not actually witness the purchase itself taking place.

    HOWEVER, merely owning or using a gun would provide absolutely no evidence of a crime unless it could be proven that person took ownership via a private transaction AFTER the UBC went into effect. How do you suggest that such a thing could be proven--outside the limited circumstances/situations already acknowledged and amply discussed? Without knowing who owns guns NOW, it is very difficult (impossible in the general case) to prove tomorrow that non-background-checked transfers took place.
    NOW we're getting somewhere. Yes, they do this all the time. And then when the desired result is not obtained (which is VERY likely when weak/ineffective laws are concerned), the very weakness and ineffectiveness of the law is used as a foot in the door to take the next step, to pass a more restrictive law, to limit actions and rights even further because the initial law was too weak, too hard to enforce, etc.

    You brought up the drug laws--it's a good example. Look at how they have progressed over the years. We have to sign our names to buy effective OTC allergy medication at the supermarket, the glassware in yesteryear's children's chemistry sets are illegal today, and that's just a small portion...
     
  13. Spymaster

    Spymaster member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    78
    Good points all^^^. Ultimately, those that are supporting incrementalist infringements, are self-centered elitists, men and women who feel that the UBC is somebody elses problem, and thus they have no problem with the infringment, its somebody elses problem, they are above it.

    These are not the kind of people you want on your team...
     
  14. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Folks, pay attention to what John is saying.

    For the most part, this UBC thing in CO will be unenforceable. Not only do they not know who has what now, but they will have no way of knowing how many times and on what dates a firearm initially distributed prior to the effective date has been transferred. Even the ones manufactured after the effective date are not going to show up any differently unless an inquiry of disposition is made, which takes some time; Cops can see NCIC, and that only tells them if it was reported stolen. Furthermore, even following an inquiry with results that show a post-effective date manufacture, they still have to track down the 4473. There's nothing in the Colorado bill requiring you to retain records or remember which FFL did the transfer, which means the prosecutor's burden is now figuring out where the 4473 is, and he absolutely does not have the authority, even if he had the resources, to scour every FFL's 4473 files from effective date forward.

    Basically, unless one sells to an undercover officer or otherwise self-incriminates, there is no way to enforce it. No, a private citizen could not attempt their own sting, because the buyer violates the same law as the seller; Any anti-gunner with the idea of pulling a Bloomberg will land themselves in prison.

    So yes, they will seek registration later to make it an enforceable law. God willing, the democrats who said they don't support registration will maintain that position on that day (assuming they still control the legislature)
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  15. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    "Not one" is technically correct, but can you guess how many millions of guns sold before 1968 are still in circulation.
     
  16. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Also for consideration, what about NON serial numbered guns????
    until 64, a SN was NOT required, I happen to know at least ONE of mine is NOT sn'd (old mossy 500)

    Well, we now know the law is UN-enforceable
    WITH OUT A UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION....

    this is the SIMPLE argument, these people want to ban guns, what do I receive from them - NOTHING, I will not help the person attempting to remove a "god given right".
     
  17. radiotom

    radiotom Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    332
    Somebody who says that, isn't on our side. They will just reassess their principles once the next "moderate" or "compromise" position is touted in the media.
     
  18. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816

    Is is so much worse than a "feel good" measure, it is another enraging attempt to make the law abiding person the criminal instead of just punishing the criminal. So now a criminal is caught with a firearm the ATF traces back to you. The crook is trying to save his tail so he says he will testify you gave it to him without a background check. They knock on your door with a warrant to see your 4473. You lost it, can't find it, whatever, now they have evidence you transferred a firearm to a person without a background check and you are arrested because HE committed a crime. Great job congress. Can't you guys see now dangerous this law is? Besides the complete over reach of their congressional power, the potential for future registration, this is another way to criminalize YOU for engaging in legal commerce. We need to fight this one folks.

    BTW, folks this pie in the sky idea the feds have to "prove" you did it and if you didn't there is no way you can go to prison I hate to break it to you but the fact he has your firearm and his testimony ARE proof. You are the one who will have to prove your innocence regardless of what the law says. Just like the law says they can't give him a lower sentence in exchange for fingering you for a crime but they do that every day.

    Amen, they come up with a restrictive law then they loosen slightly the restrictions and call it compromise. That is NOT compromise. Compromise is when you get something and the other party gets something, NOT I get 99% of what I asked for and you get nothing especially when you know darned well they ask for more than the goal anyways so they can reduce it to what they want and call it compromise.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  19. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    The gov't already regulates guns in interstate commmerce. You cannot sell one directly to someone across a state border.
    Therefore they are proposing to regulate guns in intrastate commerce. They have no power to do this.

    In any case, does anyone really think this will cut down on crime in any fashion at all?
     
  20. sporty66

    sporty66 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Location:
    Missouri
    ubc's will not work criminals don't get backround checks.if they were to get this passed when it doest work what are we to give up next. Fight them every step of the way and give them nothing.
     
  21. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    While feasible, this situation is doubtful. It is a crime for both the transferee and transferor, so he'd be adding to his own list of charges.

    It would also end up being a case of your word against his, and he's the one who has demonstrated dishonesty. Even if they're inclined to believe the criminal, all you need is one character witness who testifies in your favor, and mr. criminal gets the perjury bonus.

    If you're able to remember the FFL who conducted the transfer, the 4473 will be on file (or with ATF if he's out of business). Of course, these guns will not be in his bound book, so if the 4473 went missing, there'll be no record. That is unlikely, though, as no FFL wants to be investigated, even if the allegation is untrue. ATF investigations are disruptive to business and stressful.

    I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the language of the bill is very clear that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I don't know how they figure they're going to be able to, but that's how it is written.

    Once again, they don't expect this law to accomplish anything without registration, and so it is a precursor.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  22. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,413
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Exactly. Once it's a law even a weak one the president can use executive orders to 'enforce' it. And of course what everyone else has said about it not working without registration.

    Assuming a private citizen is not required to save paperwork, once someone asks that person who he sold a gun to and at which dealer he can simply say I don't remember. They then would have to what? Look through every FFL in your state for that transaction? What if it's a long gun and you transferred it the next state over?

    Not to mention dealers will charge $50 for me to lend my buddy a $40 shotgun and another $50 to get it back. They talk about setting a $20 cap on it but many dealers will simply refuse to do private transfers as it would be below their 'cost' to do it (employee's time, paperwork, etc.). Which would effectively end private sales in many areas.
     
  23. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Interstate private transfers have to go through an FFL, even long guns. That is (and has been for a long time) federal law.

    But.........private individuals can ship directly to out of state FFLs. Of course, this is (probable) CO law, so if the gun is not in the state, Colorado has no authority to even investigate.

    If UBC becomes federal law and it reads like the CO bill, it will have all the same problems with enforcement, magnified by geography and population.

    Currently, even if a firearm goes through FFLs for every transfer, it is not traceable after the first resale, unless each buyer and seller recalls the FFL who did the transfer (and are willing to disclose it, which I would not be). Nothing will change.
     
  24. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,413
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Actually long guns can be transferred interstate in private sales. I've spent a lot of time trying to find out the legalities of this and finally with my LGS we asked an ATF agent and he said they are legal it's just not widely known. I spent hours looking over the law book on that particular law and finally after hearing it straight from the horse's mouth it's good enough for me. I know you shouldn't just take the word of someone in authority but it's pretty much accepted as fact around here.
     
  25. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    This is sooo incorrect. If you want to transfer a gun accross a state line, you have to do it through an FFL dealer. A private individual can buy a long gun from a dealer in another state, but not from a private (unlicensed) person in that other state.

    The following is from the ATF's website:

    This just goes to show that even ATF agents can be misinformed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page